Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32122332›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical ethics2020

A systematic review of patient access to medical records in the acute setting: practicalities, perspectives and ethical consequences.

Stephanie N D'Costa, Isla L Kuhn, Zoë Fritz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review on Visualizations for Self-Generated Health Data for Daily Activities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Ethical Challenges in Research Involving Hospitalized Patients: A Phenomenological Study.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact of notification policy on patient-before-clinician review of immediately released test results.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephanie N D'CostaGonville and Caius College, Cambridge University, Trinity Street, Cambridge, CB2 1TA, UK.
Isla L KuhnTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Cambridge University, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK.
Zoë FritzTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Cambridge University, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK. Zbmf2@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9403-409X

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208213/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust WT100577MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternationally, patient access to notes is increasing. This has been driven by respect for patient autonomy, often recognised as a primary tenet of medical ethics: patients should be able to access their records to be fully engaged with their care. While research has been conducted on the impact of patient access to outpatient and primary care records and to patient portals, there is no such review looking at access to hospital medical records in real time, nor an ethical analysis of the issues involved in such a change in process.

methodsThis study employed a systematic review framework in two stems, to integrate literature identified from two searches: Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases were conducted, (for (1) hospitalised patients, patient access to records and its effects on communication and trust within the doctor-patient relationship; and (2) patient access to medical records and the ethical implications identified). The qualitative and quantitative results of both searches were integrated and critically analysed.

results3954 empirical and 4929 ethical studies were identified; 18 papers representing 16 studies were identified for review (12 empirical and 6 ethical). The review reveals a consensus that our current approach to giving information to patients - almost exclusively verbally - is insufficient; that patient access to notes is a welcome next step for patient-centred care, but that simply allowing full access, without explanation or summary, is also insufficient. Several ethical implications need to be considered: increased information could improve patient trust and knowledge but might transfer an (unwelcome) sense of responsibility to patients; doctors and patients have conflicting views on how much information should be shared and when; sharing written information might increase the already significant disparity in access to health care, and have unforeseen opportunity costs. The impact on medical practice of sharing notes in real time will also need to be evaluated.

conclusionsThe review presents encouraging data to support patient access to medical notes. However, sharing information is a critical part of clinical practice; changing how it is done could have significant empirical and ethical impacts; any changes should be carefully evaluated.

Indexed as

HospitalizationMedical RecordsPersonal AutonomyAccess to InformationHumans

Identifiers

PMID32122332
PMCPMC7053049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.